Romasave Property Services Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKFTT 267 (TC) |
| Date | 26 April 2013 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2013] UKFTT 267 (TC)
Judge Kevin Poole, Susan Hewett OBE
The Appellant did not appear and was not represented
Lynne Ratnett, Presenting Officer of HM Revenue and Customs, appeared for the Respondents
VAT - application for permission to make late appeal - permission refused
[1]This is a decision on an application for permission to appeal out of time, pursuant to Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 83G subsec-or-para 1 section 83G subsec-or-para 6section 83G(1) and (6) Value Added Tax Act 1994 ("VATA 94").
[2]There had been an earlier abortive hearing of the application for such permission, combined with a hardship application pursuant to Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 84section 84 VATA 94. That hearing (on 31 January 2013) had been adjourned by the Tribunal because the Appellant's counsel had not been prepared to deal with the extension of time application.
[3]Since the 31 January 2013 hearing, HMRC had considered evidence supplied by the Appellant on the question of hardship and had confirmed that hardship was no longer an issue. This hearing was therefore concerned solely with whether the Appellant's application for permission to appeal out of time should be granted.
[4]The counsel previously instructed on behalf of the Appellant did not appear, nor did its accountants. Telephone calls were made but it was indicated that neither were planning to attend. We therefore proceeded in the absence of the Appellant but based on the documents previously submitted on its behalf, as well as hearing Mrs Ratnett on behalf of HMRC.
[5]We were provided with a bundle of documents which had been produced for the earlier hearing by the Appellant, together with a small bundle of documents produced by HMRC which overlapped to a degree. We heard no oral evidence, though we had a copy of a witness statement dated 29 January 2013 of Avtar Singh Mann, a director of the Appellant, which had been produced predominantly for the purposes of its hardship application. From this evidence, we find the following facts.
[6]The Appellant was at all material times involved in property development and/or letting.
[7]In September 2008 HMRC carried out a visit to the Appellant. Following that visit, they disallowed £9,103.12 of input tax, reducing the Appellant's VAT repayment claim for period 06/08 from £22,256 to £13,152.88. They also asked for further information to support the remaining input tax claimed by the Appellant for the periods from 03/07 to 03/08.
[8]As the 06/08 repayment had already been made, HMRC sought to recover the £9,103.12 by assessment. Although this assessment (dated 24 October 2008) appears on a later list of disputed decisions drawn up by the Appellant, HMRC informed us that it had been settled in early 2009 and it is not, so far as they are concerned, outstanding nor was it disputed at the time.
[9]In a letter dated 24 October 2008 addressed to the Appellant at "Griffins Wood House, Epping, Essex, CM16 5HT" (its correct business address, except for missing the line "Copped Hall Estate", which should appear before "Epping"), as well as issuing the £9,103.12 assessment for 06/08, HMRC warned that they would issue an assessment disallowing all the input tax claimed by the Appellant for the periods 03/07 to 03/08 if the Appellant did not respond to their earlier questions within 14 days. The Appellant claims not to have received this letter until much later, but there was no proper evidence on this point for us to test. In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary we find that the letter dated 24 October 2008 was sent to, and received by, the Appellant in October 2008.
[10]On 21 November 2008, HMRC issued an assessment for a misdeclaration penalty of £1,365 in respect of the over-reclaim of £9,103.12 in period 06/08. This was notified to the Appellant by a letter dated 21 November 2008 correctly addressed to it at its place of business Griffins Wood House, Copped Hall Estate, Epping, Essex, CM16 5HT.
[11]On 3 December 2008, HMRC wrote to the Appellant at its place of business (but mis-spelling the address as "Ganrids Wood House" instead of "Griffins Wood House") informing it of their decision to deny it a repayment of £2,890.70 claimed in its VAT return for period 09/08, due to the Appellant's "not responding" to HMRC's letter dated 24 October 2008. The Appellant claims not to have received this letter until much later, when it was exhibited to HMRC's winding up petition in July 2011. In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary we find that the letter dated 3 December 2008 was sent to, and received by, the Appellant at about that time.
[12]The Appellant submitted a return for period 12/08 at the end of January 2009. It included output VAT of £5,666.66 and input VAT of £6,973.49. It thus claimed a net repayment of £1,306.83. The VAT return was issued by HMRC to the Appellant at "Ganrids Wood House, Copped Hall Estate, Epping, Essex, CM16 5HT" but it was received by the Appellant and returned, duly filled out, with a manuscript correction to the name "Ganrids" It appears HMRC wrote a letter dated 6 March 2009 to the Appellant, a copy of which was not before us, but which was followed up by a letter dated 13 March 2009. The later letter, which referred to the earlier letter dated 6 March 2009, advised the Appellant of HMRC's decision to disallow the input tax claimed "due to the non-submission of evidence" with the result that the Appellant became liable for VAT of £5,666.66 for the period. This letter was sent to the mis-spelt "Ganrids Wood House" address. The Appellant claims not to have seen the letter dated 13 March 2009 until 6 February 2012. In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary we find that the letter dated 13 March 2009 was sent to, and received by, the Appellant at about that time.
[13]Presumably in the continued absence of requested information from the Appellant (we were not supplied with copies of the complete correspondence), HMRC decided that they should issue a further assessment covering the periods 03/06 to 06/08. This composite assessment, broken down between periods, was sent to the Appellant at the mis-spelt "Ganrids Wood House" address on or about 21 April 2009. This was around the same time as the Appellant submitted its VAT return for period 03/09 (which had also been sent to it at the same mis-spelt address by HMRC). This assessment totalled £99,464 plus interest of £9,861.34 (total £109,325.34). In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, we find that this assessment was duly received shortly after 21 April 2009. See also [19] below.
[14]Included in this assessment was an assessment for the remaining £13,152 of the repayment claim previously made by the Appellant for period 06/08.
[15]It appears there were further decisions over the next few months - a notice of assessment of a misdeclaration penalty of £12,941 in respect of periods 03/06 to 03/08 (which was issued on 18 May 2009, according to the Appellant), an assessment of a misdeclaration penalty of £3,388 by way of revision to the earlier similar penalty (also apparently issued on 18 May 2009) and a decision issued on 21 August 2009 denying input VAT of £3,690.36, resulting in output tax liability of £1,021.74 in respect of period 03/09 (issued, according to the Appellant, on 21 August 2009). As to the receipt of these documents, see [19] below.
[16]The next correspondence brought to our attention was a letter dated 22 September 2009 from HMRC to the Appellant's solicitors Anami Law (who shared the Appellant's address in Epping). In that letter (which was expressed to have been written "further to our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon"), HMRC included a breakdown of "the current balance of £133,422.44" (though no copy of that breakdown was included with our copy of that letter in the bundle). The letter stated that "if your client addresses the property liability and partial exemption issues raised in the correspondence, I shall arrange for the assessments to be reviewed…"
[17]In a letter to HMRC dated 15 October 2009, Anami Law referred to "the letters dated the 11th September, 2008 through to the 21st August, 2009" as having been "incorrectly sent to Griffins Wood House" (they did not mention the "Ganrids" mis-spelling). They went on to point out that the registered office of the Appellant was at King &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...earlier tribunal decision that had been set aside. The Upper Tribunal has allowed the taxpayer's appeal against decisions of the FTT ([2013] TC 02675; [2014] TC 03675) to refuse its application to make late appeals against several assessments. In the circumstances of the case, copies of the......
-
TC03675: Romasave (Property Services) Ltd
...to make a late appeal covering much the same ground was determined by the Tribunal in April 2013: Romasave Property Services LtdTAX[2013] TC 02675 (the "April 2013 decision"). In July 2013, the whole of that decision was set aside by the Tribunal on the Appellant's application, on the groun......